For me, “Girls” falls into a category I like to call “high-quality pointlessness.” That is, it’s well-executed, well-acted, well-written, well-produced work in service of a completely meaningless story. I’m more than a little amused (and jealous) that she got a multi-million dollar book advance when I question the wisdom of anyone under the age of 50 writing an advice book. (For the record - I’m well under 50.)

That said, I don’t get the Lena Dunham hate. At all. Here’s a 25 year old woman who’s already accomplished quite a lot. And she’s out there creating and doing in the middle of a cultural maelstrom in which it’s a lot easier to get famous by being willing to degrade yourself on camera for money. And being successful at it, too.

Dunham’s work might not be to my taste. But she’s hard-working and talented. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day she did make something I like a lot. My criticism of Dunham is: please use your prodigious talent in service of a more meaningful story.

But hate her? What on Earth for? What has she done to earn it? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So yeah, I find the Dunham-hate more than a little confusing.